Live data from Hacker News

On the growing, intentional uselessness of Google search results

neosmart.net

111–120 of 134 posts

Re: On the growing, intentional uselessness of Google search results

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean... Amazone should probably change their name.

Is it this Amazone? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazonen-Werke > the company was founded in 1883 I'm reminded of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADgS_vMGgzY

Yeah that's the one I had in mind.

Re: On the growing, intentional uselessness of Google search results

#112

This happens to me frequently. I've also noticed that sometimes the "Did you mean [this]?" or "Search instead for [this]" don't show up anymore, which can be a big problem. As an example, it's difficult to find information on the company "Amazone" because Google insists on correcting it to Amazon. Usually putting things in quotes fixes it, but it's annoying when I know what I want to search for and Google keeps assum…

If you are logged in to Google, and search for Amazone, then click the "search instead for Amazone" option, Google should remember your preference the next time you search.

Interesting, I just tried that. It's been a long time since I've searched for Amazone (that was just the first example that came to mind) but I don't remember seeing that in the past.

Re: On the growing, intentional uselessness of Google search results

#113
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that in 99% of cases, Google is correct. The pure volume of people mistyping Amazon is good enough reason to autocorrect "Amazone." You know what you want to search for. So tell google what you want, "Amazone." I don't see how you can complain when you have the solution to the problem, don't use it, and are an incredibly niche (<1%) case.

For me, the frustration is that quotes usually fix it, but definitely not always. Also, they don't always tell you that they are auto-correcting. I agree that it's niche and, as he's the outlier, he should have to work around the system, but that's only true if the system is, for lack of a better term, "honest", which it isn't always.

Agreed. I should have emphasized that usually quotes fix it. They don't seem to every time for some reason.

Re: On the growing, intentional uselessness of Google search results

#114
Each similar search Google can avoid re-running saves them compute resources and therefore money. Google's as-you-type search suggestions encourage some significant percentage of users performing a query to accept a search suggestion (or suggestion that aggregates multiple searches) that match exactly with searches that were already run. Google can just re-return the results.

The autocorrection and removal of terms accomplishes the same thing.

While I think these measures may be partially to help users, I think they're actually mostly cost-saving measures on Google's part.

Re: On the growing, intentional uselessness of Google search results

#115
post #39

I've long given up on Google outside of the anglosphere. I travel a lot. Location services are enabled on my phone and laptop yet Google still wants to serve up results from the US. I've had to be very careful with how I use Maps since the name of a dutch city or street just might share the same name as some bar in middle America. I think someone is buying or gaming search results. When I'm in Paris some results take…

I got quite tired of Google only showing me local (Brazilian) stores when I search for the name of a product in English. Or completely translating my search queries when I get some compiling error on libraries.

Good thing is that with DDG, I can simply use the !g command, and Google won't know I'm making the query from Brazil, and won't be able to localize it at all.

Re: On the growing, intentional uselessness of Google search results

#117
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. However the problems (as I see them now) are 2fold: No concept of time. Best case conception of time seems to be either provided by the site, "article date" or something to this effect, or t0 = when google first learned about the page. So yes, "goat" + "animal" will return your results. Try: https://www.google.com/#q=%22nodejs%22+%2B+%222016%22++mongo... Top anser for: "nodejs" + "2016" mongo api returns top…

You can set a time range under "Search Tools". See here: http://i.imgur.com/n5BNkei.png As for filtering by backend technology - I'm not sure that would always be feasible. While it may be possible to filter default Wordpress sites, I'm not so sure about sites whom backbone architecture may not be known or publicly available. E: As for your computer issue, try searching for "problem/error name" + "solved" rather than…

Thanks, the "issue" was an illustrative example, however I am a relatively tech savvy person and I use google frequently and I didn't know about this feature. I would be interested to know what percentage of searches leverage it relative to people who type recent year/date into the box for just a quick and dirty statistic about visibility.

I don't actually want to filter backend technology, but I would like to communicate to the search engine that I do not trust (nor want to have returned as a result) any wordpress, blogger or medium website, and I want their rank to be negative.

That is another extreme example, however to discover new things is hard and to find useful information, when communities of bad actors have spent years incentivized to rank higher but not produce quality, it could be easier to simply delist everything and gradually add websites you trust to have authority.

Re: On the growing, intentional uselessness of Google search results

#118
post #63

Yes, yes, yes. I have been meaning to write this very blog post for years with examples just like this. There is not a single day that goes by that I am not searching for something specific and particular in google and am treated to pages and pages of search results that are missing at least one of the terms, thus rendering the results useless. The worst part is, the strikethrough "missing: search term" identifier do…

Can you give some examples of searches that don't work for you? I'm also a professional and an engineer and generally find a quick Google search to point me in the right direction every time.

Re: On the growing, intentional uselessness of Google search results

#119
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Search, or the quest for knowledge, is not going to be displaced or marginalized. If a small company builds true AI, Google is done.

Depends on how they arrive at it. If they create true AI with lots of spare capacity then maybe Google is threatened, but what seems more likely to me is that true AI is achieved in some hodgepodge system that wasn't well architected to scale. An example of this would be a true AI that came about as a result of embodiment in a robot. Yes, it is true AI but that doesn't mean it knows how to read, let alone read and un…

And, more likely, if a small company does come up with a great AI, they're going to get bought be Google, not compete. Reason being you are still going to need the sheer hardware capacity (a LOT of it) to process so much data. I remember a good article about how YouTube would have likely hit serious trouble had Google not bought them. YouTube was starting to crumble under the exponential growth in load, and Google was perfectly matched to provide infrastructure support.

Re: On the growing, intentional uselessness of Google search results

#120
I've developed the habit of just asking Google questions instead of crafting something to feed how I think the algorithm works. I also don't worry about ranking, just as long as something is in the top 10.

Does deluge bittorrent support retina display?

The 7th link result for that question has the text "Deluge has updated their program to support the Retina Display" in it's text summary. That's good enough for me.

Post reply on HN